I874J 


f 


}  / 


_  ^ 


'^^^^^^i^^if^^'^^K^'^i^^^i^^imm^mn^^^m^^^'^^^^'^^m^i^^m^m^m^^mm^imm'^^^^i^g^s^m 


The  Alabama  Claims. 


u^«^ 


^    SYNOPSIS 


f        !  BY 


T.  L.  CLINGMAN, 


ATTORJs-EY  FOR 


CERTAIN    UNDERWRITERS. 


vJA.3SrXJA-I^"3r    18,    1876. 


m'oii.i.   V   wi  nir.i.MW,  i'Rintehs  and  srKnKorvPKiii-. 
1876. 


■.iK'mmirmi^^i0^i^^^^i^mi0Um0>m^mm^^^^i^m^m^^^l*t^^i^^ 


TX 


THE  ALABAMA  CLAIMS. 


The  act  of  Congress  approved  June  the  23d,  1874,  con- 
tains a  provision  in  the  following  words  : 

"  N"o  claim  shall  be  admissible  or  allowed  by  the  court 

by  or  in  behalf  of  any  insurance  company  or  insurer,  either 

in  its  or  his  own  right,  or  as  assignee  or  otherwise  in  the 

right  of  a  person  or  party  insured,  unless  such  claimant 

shall  show  to  the  satisfaction  of  said  court  that  during  the 

late  rebellion  the  sum  of  its  or  his  losses  in  respect  to  its 

or  his  war  risks  exceeded  the  sura  of  its  or  his  premiums 

or  other  gains  upon  or  in  respect  to  such  war  risks ;  and 

in  case  of  any  such  allowance,  the  same  shall  not  be  greater 

'  than  such  excess  of  loss." 

v/;*       Such  a  provision  as  the  above  seems  so  singular  in  itself 

as  to  require  explanation.     If  insurance  companies  or  in- 

N*   surers  have  a  legal  or  equitable  claim  to  a  share  of  the  fund 

paid  under  the  award  at  Geneva,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how 

that  right  would  be  lost  by  its  profits  or  losses  in  its  gen- 

''♦•  eral  business  operations  in  that  class  of  cases. 

,        No  one  could  successfully  contest  the  claim  of  a  mer- 

^  chant  or  a  hotel-keeper  merely  on  the  ground  that  in  his 

general  business  outside  of  tlie  transactions  with  him  he 

hud  realized  profits.     Still  less  likely  would  an  attorney, 

who  had  collected  a  sum  of  money  for  a  banking  corpora- 

^  tion,  be  justified  in  withholding  the  money  from  his  client 

.  for  the  reason  that  it  had  made  profits  in  its  general  busi- 

V  ncsH  within  the  past  four  years. 

^       If,  on   the  other  hand,  the  Government  of  the  UnitcMl 

'-^  States  should  be  the  rightful  owner,  in  every  sense,  of  the 

^  sum  of  money  awarded  at  Geneva,  it  might  undoubtedly 

:  bestow  such  sums  as  it  might  think  proper  on  corporations 

^j(  or  individuals.     It  strikes  the  njind  as  singuhir,  however, 


4257752 


that  among  the  many  sufferers  in  the  hite  civil  war  it 
sliould  select  insurance  companies  as  the  object  of  its 
bounty.  It  is  still  more  surprising  that  it  should  have,  as 
other  provisions  of  this  act  declare,  selected  those  who 
had  suiiered  from  the  acts  of  three  ships  especially  named, 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  sufferers  from  the  depredations  of  a 
number  of  other  ships  equally  destructive  of  the  commerce 
of  the  United  States.  But  it  is  still  more  remarkable  that 
it  should  relieve  those  who  were  injured  by  the  Shenandoah 
after  she  left  the  British  port  of  Melbourne,  and  rigidly 
exclude  the  many  who  suffered  from  the  action  of  tlie 
same  ship  before  she  entered  that  port.  The  provisions  of 
the  act  in  this  view  appear  so  extraordinary,  not  to  say 
whimsical,  as  to  require  explanation. 

What  are  the  real  facts  in  the  case?  Was  this  money 
paid  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for  its  own 
use,  or  was  the  payment  made  to  satisfy  the  claims  of 
others  ? 

The  fact  is  well  known  that  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  did  present  certain  claims  for  indirect 
losses  from  the  action  of  the  Alabama  and  other  Confed- 
erate cruisers,  "in  the  transfer  of  a  large  part  of  the  Amer- 
ican commercial  marine  to  the  British  flag,  in  the  en- 
hanced payment  of  insurance,  in  the  prolongation  of  the 
war,  and  in  the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the 
war,  and  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion."  But  these 
"indirect  claims"  met  with  such  decided  opposition  on 
tlie  part  of  Great  Britain  that  it  seemed  for  a  time  that 
any  settlement  by  arbitration  might  be  defeated,  unless 
the  United  States  should  consent  to  withdraw  those  claims. 

During  the  discussion,  the  Secretary  of  State,  in  a  letter 
to  General  Schenck,  dated  April  23,  1872,  used  this  lan- 
guage : 

"Neither  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  nor,  so 
far  as  I  can  hear,  any  considerable  number  of  the  American 
people,  liave  ever  attached  much  importance  to  the  indi- 
rect claims,  or  have  ever  expected  or  desired  any  award  of 


damages  on  their  account.  *  *  In  the  correspondence, 
I  have  gone  as  far  as  prudence  would  allow  in  intimating 
that  we  neither  desired  nor  expected  any  pecuniary  award, 
and  that  we  should  be  content  with  an  award;  that  a  State 
is  not  liable  in  pecuniary  damages  for  the  indirect  results 
of  a  failure  to  observe  its  neutral  obligations." 

At  a  subsequent  period,  before  the  Tribunal  of  Arbi- 
tration, on  the  15th  of  June,  the  United  States  presented 
its  Argument,  while  the  British  Argument  was  withheld, 
the  British  Agent  asked  for  an  adjournment,  in  order  that 
the  two  Grovernments  might  arrive  at  some  understanding 
as  to  the  indirect  claims. 

On  June  19th  the  Arbitrators  stated,  ''That  after  the 
most  careful  perusal  of  all  that  has  been  urged  on  the  part 
of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  respect  to  these 
claims,  they  have  arrived,  individually  and  collectively,  at 
the  conclusion  that  these  claims  do  not  constitute,  upon 
the  principle  of  international  law,  applicable  to  such  cases, 
good  foundation  for  an  award  of  compensation  or  compu- 
tation of  damages  between  nations;  and  should,  upon  such 
principles,  be  wholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of 
the  Tribunal  in  making  its  award,  even  if  there  was  no  dis- 
agreement between  the  two  Governments  as  to  the  compe- 
tency of  the  Tribunal  to  decide  thereon."  (Correspondence 
respeclinrj  Geneva  Arbiiration,  p.  152.) 

The  same  day  the  counsel  of  the  United  States  advised 
Mr.  Davis,  tlic  Agent,  that  the  statement  of  the  Tribunal, 
in  part  quoted  al)ove,  "must  be  received  by  the  United 
States  as  determinative  of  its  judgment  upon  the  (picstions 
of  public  law  involved."  They  therefore  advised  that  the 
United  States  "should  announce  to  the  Tribunal  that  the 
said  claims,  covered  by  its  opinion,  will  not  be  further  in- 
sisted upon  before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United  States,  and 
may  be  excluded  from  all  consideration  by  the  Tribunal  in 
making  its  award."  {Correspondence  respecting  the  Geneva 
Arbitration.,  p.  152.) 

At  a  subsequent  meeting  of  the  Tribunal,  Mr.  Davis, 
after  receiving  instructions  from  his  Government,  said: 


"The  declaration  made  by  the  Tribunal,  individually 
and  collectively,  respecting  the  claims  presented  by  the 
United  States  for  the  award  of  the  Tribunal,  for,  first,  the 
losses  in  the  transfer  of  the  American  commercial  marine 
to  the  British  flag;  second,  the  enhanced  payments  of 
insurance;  and,  third,  the  prolongation  of  the  v^^ar,  and 
the  addition  of  a  large  sum  to  the  cost  of  the  war  and  the 
suppression  of  the  rebellion,  is  accepted  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  as  determinative  of  their  judgment 
upon  the  important  question  of  public  law  involved.  The 
Agent  of  the  United  States  is  authorized  to  say,  that  con- 
sequently the  above-mentioned  claims  will  not  be  further 
insisted  upon  before  the  Tribunal  by  the  United  States, 
and  may  be  excluded  from  all  consideration  in  any  award 
that  may  be  made."  {See  Correspondence  respecting  Geneva 
Arbitration,  p.  154. 

On  the  27th  of  June,  the  representatives  of  Great  Britain, 
understanding  thus  from  the  Agent  of  the  United  States, 
"That  the  several  claims  particularly  mentioned  in  that 
statement  will  not  be  further  insisted  upon  before  the  Tri- 
bunal by  the  United  States,  and  may  be  excluded  from  all 
consideration  in  any  award  that  may  be  made,  and  assum- 
ing that  the  Arbitrators  will,  upon  such  statement,  think 
fit  now  to  declare  that  the  said  several  claims  are,  and 
from  henceforth  will  be,  wholly  excluded  from  their  con- 
sideration, and  will  embody  such  declaration  in  their 
protocol  of  this  day's  proceedings,"  &c.,  expressed  their 
satisfaction,  and  delivered  their  printed  argument  "  with 
reference  to  the  other  claims,  to  the  consideration  of 
which,  by  the  Tribunal,  no  exception  has  been  taken  on 
the  part  of  Her  Majesty's  Government." 

"  Count  Sclopis,  in  behalf  of  all  the  arbiti'ators,  then  de- 
clared that  the  said  claims  for  indirect  losses,  mentioned  in 
the  statement  by  the  agent  of  the  United  States  on  the  25th 
inst.,  and  referred  to  in  the  statement  just  made  by  the 
agent  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  are,  and  from  henceforth, 
wholly  excluded  from  the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal, 
and  directed  the  secretary  to  embody  the  dcclaiation  in  the 


protocol  of  this  day's  proceedings."  (Protocol,  vii,  of  June 
27,  1872.) 

It  is  therefore  indisputable  that  the  claims  of  the  United 
States  for  indirect  losses,  including  "the  enhanced  pay- 
ments of  insurance  "  {or  ivar  premiums)  were  wholly  excluded 
froDfi  the  consideration  of  the  Tribunal.  iTo  language  that 
could  have  been  selected  would  have  expressed  this  fact  in 
stronger  terms. 

The  Tribunal  then  proceeded  to  consider  the  direct 
claims,  which  included  two  heads,  viz:  1st.  The  claims  for 
direct  losses  growing  out  of  the  destruction  of  vessels  and 
their  cargoes  by  the  insurgent  cruisers.  2d.  The  national 
expenditure  in  the  pursuit  of  these  cruisers.  As  to  the  sec- 
ond class  of  these  claims,  the  decision  of  the  Tribunal  was 
as  follows: 

"  Whereas,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  particulars  of  the  in- 
demnity claimed  by  the  United  States,  the  costs  of  pursuit 
of  the  Confederate  cruisers  are  not,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
Tribunal,  p)roperly  distinguishable  from  the  general  ex- 
penses of  the  war  carried  on  by  the  United  States  ;  the  Tri- 
bunal is,  therefore,  of  opinion,  by  a  majority  of  three  to 
two  voices,  that  there  is  no  ground  for  awarding  to  the 
United  States  any  sum  by  way  of  indemnity  under  this 
head." 

The  Tribunal  proceeded  to  inquire  which  of  the  ships 
Great  Britain  should  be  held  responsible  for  on  account  of 
her  alleged  negligence,  and  it  was  decided  that  she  should 
be  held  accountable  for  the  acts  of  the  Alabama,  the  Flor- 
ida, and  their  tenders,  and  for  the  Shenandoah,  from  and 
after  her  departure  from  Melbourne. 

The  reprcHentatives  of  the  United  States  presented  a 
carefully  prepared  statement,  eml)racing  the  names  of  the 
shifts  destroyed,  with  their  values,  as  well  as  of  tliose  of 
their  cargoes,  and  the  names  of  their  owners,  &c.  This  list 
specified  the  names  of  insurance  companies,  as  wt'll  as  of 
individual  claimants.  Indeed,  it  will  be  seen  from  the  pub- 
lished correspondence  of  the  Secretary  of  State  that  the 
cases  of  claims  of  insurance  companies  were,  from  the  early 


part  of  the  war,  presented  and  urged  just  as  those  of  the 
private  owners  were. 

Before  the  arbitrators  the  commissioners  of  the  United 
States  referred  to  the  fact  that  it  had  been  repeatedly  set- 
tled by  judicial  decisions,  both  in  England  and  America, 
that  an  insurer  who  had  paid  for  a  vessel  as  a  total  loss,  was 
subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  original  owner.  In  other 
words,  he  became  entitled  to  the  "  spes  recuperaiidi,"  and 
might  fairly  claim  all  that  the  insured  owner  could  have 
done  if  there  had  been  no  insurance  on  the  property. 

The  British  commissioners  admitted  that  such  was  the 
law  of  Great  Britain,  as  well  as  of  the  United  States,  and 
in  their  Counter  Case  the  following  language  is  used : 

"The  American  Insurance  Companies  who  have  paid  the 
owners  as  for  a  total  loss  are,  in  our  opinion,  entitled  to  be 
subrogated  to  the  rights  of  the  latter,  according  to  the  well- 
known  principle  that  an  underwriter  who  has  paid  as  for  a 
total  loss,  acquires  the  rights  of  the  assured  in  respect  of 
the  subject-matter  of  insurance.  This  principle  was  ex- 
plained and  acted  on  in  the  well-known  English  cases  of 
Randall  v.  Cochran,  1  Ves.,  Sen.,  98,  and  The  Quebec  Fire 
Insurance  Company  v.  St.  Louis,  7  Moore,  P.  C,  286,  and 
is  well  recognized  by  the  courts  of  America.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  eqnally  clear  that  underwriters  cannot  be  enti- 
tled to  anything  more  than  the  assured  themselves,  for  the 
claim  of  the  former  is  founded  on  nothing  else  than  their 
title  to  be  subrogated  to  the  rights  which  the  latter  pos- 
sessed, and  which  therefore  cannot  possibly  be  more  ex- 
tensive than  the  claim  which  the  latter  would  be  entitled 
to  maintain.  From  these  considerations  two  consequences 
follow:  In  the  lirst  place,  where  the  claimant  is  the  insur- 
ance company,  and  not  the  owner,  compensation  cannot 
be  due  for  any  sum  exceeding  the  amount  of  the  actual 
loss  sustained  by  the  owner,  however  much  that  sum  may 
fall  short  of  the  amount  paid  by  the  company  by  reason  of 
the  property  having  been  over-insured.  In  the  second 
place,  wherever  the  owner  puts  forward  a  claim  for  his  loss 
at  the  same  time  that  the  insurance  company  also  claims 


the  money  paid  by  them  in  respect  of  the  same  loss,  such  a 
double  claim  must  at  once  be  absolutely  rejected,  since  to 
allow  it  would  be  in  effect  to  sanction  the  payment  of  the 
loss  twice  over."     (British  Counter  Case,  p.  135.) 

In  reply  to  the  criticisms  of  the  merits  of  the  private 
claims  by  the  British  Counter  Case,  the  following  words  are 
used  in  the  United  States  Argument. 

The  claims  now  under  discussion  (excluding  those  for 
increased  war  premiums)  may  be  divided  into  two  general 
classes : 

"  1st.  Claims  for  the  alleged  value  of  property  destroyed 
by  the  several  cruisers. 

"  2d.  Claims  arising  from  damages  in  the  destruction  of 
property,  but  over  and  above  its  value. 

"  Under  the  first  class  would  be  included  (a)  owners'  . 
claims  for  the  values  of  vessels  destroyed;  {b)  merchants' 
claims  for  the  values  of  goods  destroyed;  (c)  whalers  and 
fishermen's  claims  for  the  values  of  oil  or  fish  destroyed; 
{d)  passengers,  officers,  and  sailors'  claims  for  the  values  of 
personal  property  destroyed ;  (e)  the  claims  of  Insurance 
Companies  for  the  values  of  property  destroyed,  for  which 
they  had  paid  the  owners  in  insurance  *  *  *  *  The 
claims  of  Insurance  Companies  for  the  value  of  property 
destroyed,  for  which  they  have  paid  the  owners  the  insur- 
ance, is  the  last  division  under  the  claims  of  the  first  class. 
We  readily  admit  that  whenever  the  owner  put  forward  a 
claim  for  his  loss  at  the  same  time  that  the  Insurance  Com- 
pany also  claims  the  money  paid  by  tiiem  in  respect  of  the 
same  loss,  then  only  one  value  of  the  property  tlestroycd 
can  be  allowed,  but  we  insist  that  in  all  such  cases  the 
award  should  be  equal  to  the  full  value  of  the  property 
destroyed. 

"  It  was  the  intention  of  the  United  States,  in  preparing 
the  list  of  claims  to  indicate  whenever  double  claims  of  this 
cla88  occurred,  when  it  was  evident,  upon  a  simple  exam- 
ination of  the  papers,  that  such  double  claims  were  made, 
and  it  will  be  found  that  very  few,  if  any,  of  such  claims 
exist,  except  in  the  case  of  some  of  the  whaling  vessels 


which  were  destroyer]  by  the  Shenandoah^  there  being  none 
of  this  class  of  double  claims  in  the  case  of  merchant  ships 
or  property  destroyed  on  merchant  ships."  (U.  S.  Argu- 
ment, p.  554.) 

"When  the  arbitrators  proceeded  to  consider  the  detailed 
statement  of  the  values  of  the  ships,  their  cargoes,  &c.,  it 
was  seen  that  the  estimate  of  the  values  as  claimed  by  the 
Agent  of  the  United  States  was  much  higher  than  that 
made  b}^  the  experts  on  the  side  of  Great  Britain.  The 
United  States  claimed  $14,437,143.51,  with  interest  thereon 
at  seven  per  cent.,  as  the  gross  sum  that  should  be  awarded. 

The  Agent  of  Great  Britain  claimed  that  the  proper  sum 
to  be  awarded  was  $7,074,715,  with  such  additional  sum  as 
the  Tribunal  might  give  as  interest. 

At  the  session  of  the  30th  of  August,  "  the  Tribunal  hav- 
ing discussed  in  general  the  award  of  a  gross  sum,  requested 
Mr.  Steampfli,  one  of  the  arbitrators,  to  present  for  the 
next  conference  copies  of  a  synoptical  table,"  which  he 
had  prepared  on  the  subject.     (See  Protocol,  xxviii.) 

At  the  session  of  September  2d,  the  Tribunal,  by  a  ma- 
jority of  four  to  one,  decided  that  interest  should  be  ad- 
mitted as  an  element  in  the  calculation  of  a  sum  in  gross. 
Mr.  Staempfli  presented  to  the  Tribunal  the  synoptical  ta- 
ble which  he  had  prepared  as  a  proposition  for  the  determ- 
ination of  a  sum  in  gross  in  the  following  words  and 
figures: 

Estimate  of  Mr.  Siaempjii  for  the  determination  of  a  sum  in 

gross. 

After  the  late      British  Allowance.  Mean. 

American  Table. 

Amount  of  claims $14,437,000        $7,074,000        $10,905,000 

Expenditure  in  pursuit 6,735,000  940,000         Struck  out. 

f  Struck  out 
I    as  such, 

I      but  for 
wages 588,000 

25  percent, 
on    the 
I  values  of 
[vessels 400,000 

$11,893,000 


9 

Round  sura $12,000,000 

Interest  from  the  1st  January,  1864,  to  the 

loth  September,  1872. 
1.  At  5  per  cent,  during  eight  years  and  eight 
and  one  half  months. 

8  X  $600,000=84,800,000 
8h  X      50,000=      425,000 

5,225,000 


17,225,000 


Eventually  one  year's  interest  more 17,825,000 

2.  At  6  per  cent,  during  eight  years  and  eight 
and  one  half  months. 

8  X  $720,000=^5,760,000 
8|x       60,000=      510,000 


6,270,000     18,270,000 


Eventually  one  year's  interest  more 18,990,000 

3.  At  7  per  cent,  during  eight  years  and  eight 
and  one  half  months. 

8  X  8840,000=^6,720,000 
81 X      70,000=      595,000 


7,315,000     19,315,000 
Eventually  one  year's  interest  more 840,000 

20,155,000 


Round  sum $20,000,000 

At  the  same  session,  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  as  one  of 
the  Arbitrators,  presented  a  memorandum  criticising  the 
estimate  of  Mr.  Staemi)ili,  and  he  also  presented  his  own 
estimate  or  table,  as  follows  :     . 

Ihblc  in  reference  to  the  estimate  of  Mr.  Staempjli. 

Total  United  States  claim  in  the  last  revised 

tables - $14,437,143 

9 


10 

Necessary  reduction  to  be  made  from  the  above 
supposed  total : 

Double  claims $1,682,243 

New  claims 1,450,000 

One  half  gross  freight 503,576 


3,635,819 


Makinsr  the  total  reduced  claim--  10,801,324 


As  against  the  British  estimate  of      ■  7,464,764 


The  mean  of  these  two  sums  is--  9,133,044 

Add  to  this  Mr.  Staempfli's  al- 
lowance in  lieu  of  prospec- 
tive catch  : 

One  year's  wages 588,000 

Twenty-live  per  cent,  on  the  value 

of  vessels 400,000 

988,000 


$10,121,044 


At  the  same  session,  "  after  a  detailed  deliberation,  a 
majority  of  the  Tribunal,  of  four  to  one,  decided,  under 
the  Vllth  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington,  to  award  in 
gross  the  sum  of  $15,500,000,  to  be  paid  in  gold,  by  Great 
Britain  to  tlie  United  States,  in  the  time  and  manner  pro- 
vided by  the  said  article  of  the  Treaty  of  Washington." 
(See  Protocol  xxix.) 

If,  to  the  estimate  of  Sir  Alexander  Cockburn,  there  be 
added  interest  at  the  rate  of  six  per  cent,  for  the  period  of 
eight  years,  eight  and  one-half  months,  the  sum  will  be 
$15,409,285.  It  thus  appears  that  the  sum  in  gross  actually 
awarded  was  not  $100,000  above  this  amount.  An  exam- 
ination of  the  whole  case  shows  conclusively  that  the  award 
was  made  to  meet  the  individual  losses,  the  detailed  state- 
ment of  which  was  presented  by  the  United  States  to  the 
Tribunal. 

In  his  statement  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  as  a 
reason  why  all  the  items  of  individual  losses  should  be  cs- 


11 

timated  in  the  award,  Mr.  Davis  spoke  in  the  following 
words : 

"III.  The  United  States  make  claim  for  all  the  undi- 
vided shares  of  a  ship,  whether  the  owner  of  the  share, 
however  small,  makes  claim  or  not,  hecause  the  United 
States  will  be  obliged  to  indemnify  all  the  owners,  in  case 
the  Tribunal  shall  accord  a  gross  sum  to  the  United  States. 
If  this  were  not  done  there  would  be  an  evident  injustice." 

After  the  decision  of  the  Tribunal  had  been  made  an- 
nouncing the  result,  Mr.  Davis,  in  his  dispatch  to  Mr.  Fish, 
dated  Paris,  21st  of  September,  1872,  giving  a  report  of 
his  action  as  agent  of  the  United  States,  says,  (see  Report, 
as  recentl}^  published,  p.  10  :) 

"The  neutral  Arbitrators  and  Mr.  Adams,  from  the  be' 
ginning  of  the  proceedings,  were  convinced  of  the  policy 
of  awarding  a  sum  in  gross. 

"  For  some  weeks  before  the  decision  was  given  I  felt 
sure  that  the  Arbitrators  would  not  consent  to  send  the 
Case  to  Assessors  until  they  should  have  exhausted  all 
eltbrts  to  agree  themselves  upon  the  sum  to  bo  paid. 

"  We  therefore  devoted  our  energies  towards  securing 
such  a  sum  as  should  be  practically  an  indemnit}'^  to  the 
sufferers.  Whether  we  have  or  have  not  been  successful, 
can  be  determined  only  by  the  final  division  of  the  sum." 

Why  was  there  an  anxiety  felt  to  secure  a  sum  in  gross? 
If  a  sum  in  gross  should  not  be  awarded,  it  was  provided 
by  article  10  of  the  treaty  that  the  cases  should  go  to  a 
Board  of  Assessors,  at  which  both  Governments  might  be 
represented  by  their  counsel.  As  this  board  might  sit  for 
three  years  it  was  felt  on  both  sides  desiral)le  to  avoid  a 
second  tedious  examination  of  so  large  a  number  of  claims 
to  be  canvassed  and  discussed  by  the  agents  of  both  Gov- 
ernments. These  reasons  were  assigned  by  the  Secretary 
of  State  and  pressed  on  the  attention  of  the  representatives 
of  the  United  States,  and  finally  prevailed  to  induce  tlie 
Tribunal  to  award  the  sum  in  gross. 

Does  the  form  of  the  award  as  thus  made  so  cliangc  its 
character  as  to  relieve  the   Government  of  its  obliiratioii 


12' 

to  indemnify  those  for  whose  losses  the  money  Avas  un- 
doubtedly paid  by  Great  Britain  ?  Suppose  that  an  attor- 
ney who  was  claiming  damages  for  the  loss  of  a  ship 
should  say  to  the  court,  that,  as  there  were  many  owner& 
of  the  ship  whose  shares  varied  greatly  in  amount,  and 
therefore  the  ascertaining  the  value  of  their  several  shares 
would  be  very  tedious,  and  delay  the  court  for  a  long  pe- 
riod of  timQ,  and  therefore  he  would  be  content  if  a  sum 
were  awarded  for  the  ship  as  a  whole  sufficient,  however,  to 
cover  all  the  losses,  and  that  he  would  out  of  this  amount 
be  able  to  settle  with  his  clients  according  to  the  value  of 
their  several  claims,  and  should  the  court  award  at  his 
request  a  sum  in  gross,  would  such  attorney  be  authorized 
to  retain  this  money  for  his  own  use  or  bestow  it  on  some 
other  clients  whose  cases  he  had  recently  lost?  A  mere 
statement  of  such  a  case  shows  the  absurdity  of  such  a  pro- 
ceeding. Is  the  situation  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  respect  to  the  fund  awarded  really  different  in 
substance  and  the  principles  of  natural  justice  from  the  one 
above  stated? 

But  it  has  been  said  that  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  cannot  be  an  attorney  for  its  citizens.  To  make  it 
appear  that  the  Government  was  not  in  this  transaction, 
in  substance  and  in  fact,  a  representative,  agent,  guardian, 
or  attorney  of  its  citizens,  would  require  that  a  construc- 
tion should  be  resorted  to  far  more  strict  than  that  de- 
manded upon  the  principles  of  the  resolutions  of  1798. 

Chief  Justice  Kent,  in  the  case  of  Gracie  v.  The  New 
York  Insurance  Company,  in  delivering  the  opinion  of  the 
court,  said:  "If  France  should  at  any  future  period  agree 
to  and  actually  make  compensation  for  the  capture  and 
condemnation  in  question,  the  Government  of  the  United 
States,  to  whom  the  compensation  in  the  first  instance 
would  be  payable,  would  become  trustee  for  the  party  hav- 
ing the  equitable  title  to  the  reimbursement;  and  this 
would  clearly  be  the  defendants,  (the  underwriters,)  if  they 
should  pay  the  amount." 

A  number  of  authorities  tuiijht  be  fou)id  to  this  effect. 


13 

With  respect  to  these  claims,  tlie  Government  of  the  United 
States  forbade  individuals  to  apply  to  Great  Britain  for 
redress,  and  claimed  the  exclusive  right  to  present  thern. 
President  Grant,  too,  in  his  message  of  Decembers,  1870, 
recommended  Congress  to  make  a  settlement  with  these 
private  claimants,  "  so  that  the  Government  shall  have  the 
oionership  of  the  -private  claims  as  well  as  the  responsible 
control  of  all  the  demands  against  Great  Britain." 

After  the  confirmation  of  the  Treaty  at  Washington,  the 
State  Department  called  upon  all  its  citizens  having  claims 
known  severally  as  "  Alabama  claims,"  to  present  them  to 
the  Department  of  State.  Its  letter  bears  date  September, 
1871,  and  calls  on  all  persons  having  these  claims  to  pre- 
sent, "to  do  so  without  delay,"  because  "the  time  for 
presenting  the  Case  of  the  United  States  expires  on  the 
16th  of  December  next." 

At  its  previous  conference,  with  reference  to  this  matter, 
similar  grounds  were  taken  by  the  Government,  and  the 
like  language  used.  During  the  proceedings  before  the 
Arbitrators  with  respect  to  all  those  claims,  the  Government 
occupied  a  similar  attitude.  It  seems  diflfcult  to  distin- 
guish its  case  from  that  of  a  law  firm  that  should  in  this 
city  advertise  for  business  claims  of  a  certain  class,  except 
that  the  liability  of  the  United  States  on  the  principles  of 
justice  is  greater,  inasmuch  as  it  possessed  a  power  that 
no  law  law  firm  has  of  preventing  its  citizens  from  pre- 
senting their  claims  through  any  other  agency  than  its 
own. 

The  Government  undoubtedly  obtained  this  money  by 
presenting  the  claims  of  its  citizens  for  injuries  done  them, 
and  insisted  that  insurers,  who  had  paid  for  the  [)roj)erty 
destroyed,  were  entitled  to  stand  in  tlie  position  of  the  ori- 
ginal owner.  It  wa-?  by  including  the  claims  of  insurers 
that  nearly  one-half  the  sum  awarded  was  obtained.  Can 
it  honestly  now  repudiate  its  former  acts  and  refuse  to  pay 
to  those  whose  claims  were  in  fact  considered,  estimated 
for,  and  allowed  as  fully  as  any  other  class  of  claimants? 

Those  opposing  the  payment  to  underwriters  <len«;uncc 


14 

corporations  "that  have  made  money  during  the  war." 
Corporations  are  composed  of  men,  women,  and  children. 
It  has  not  hitherto  been  settled  that  men  are  so  odious  that 
they  are  not  permitted  to  receive  money  for  which  they 
have  given  an  equivalent,  while  women  and  children  are 
regarded  as  entitled  to  favor  in  the  estimation  of  courts  of 
justice.  How  is  it  that  their  association  in  an  incorporated 
company  should  render  them  odious? 

If  an  estimate  could  be  made  of  the, profits  of  stockhold- 
ers in  all  the  corporations  that  have  existed  in  the  United 
States  for  the  last  ten  or  twenty  years,  it  is  not  probable 
that  they  would  exceed  the  average  of  all  the  different 
kinds  of  industrial  occupations  of  the  country.  It  has  been 
said  that  a  large  majority  of  insurance  companies  have  failed. 
This  is  probably  true.  But  nevertheles^s  corporations  are 
useful,  because  they  are  instrumental  in  effecting  results 
that  individual  enterprise  cannot  accomplish. 

A  single  one  of  these  insurance  companies  insured  prop- 
erty of  the  value,  for  the  year  1863,  of  $270,000,000;  1864, 
$320,000,000;  1865,  ^880,000,000. 

This  large  amount  of  property  was  in  part  kept  afloat 
by  a  marine  insurance  company.  Without  such  aid  a 
large  number  of  ships  would  probably  have  remained  idle 
in  port,  or  been  transferred  to  a  foreign  flag,  because 
owners  would  not  have  risked  their  loss,  though  they 
were  willing  to  pay  something  to  a  corporation  that  would 
become  responsible  in  case  they  were  captured. 

It  has  been  proclaimed  in  debate,  however,  as  a  reason 
for  excluding  insurance  companies,  that  one  of  them  might 
receive  out  of  the  award  more  than  a  million  and  a  half  of 
dollars.  If  so,  however,  it  can  only  obtain  a  large  sum 
by  showing  that  it  has  paid  out  a  similar  amount.  It 
has  never  been  pretended  that  a  banking  corporation,  or 
an  individual  who  advanced  a  large  sum  of  money,  was 
not  entitled  to  have  it  returned,  on  the  same  principles  as 
one  who  lent  a  small  sum.  If  this  corporation  is  entitled 
to  receive  a  large  amount,  it  must  be  remembered  that  it 
has  a  great  number  of  shareholders,  and  that  it  has  done  a 


15 

large  business,  and  paid  out  a  great  sura  ofmouey  to  those 
whose  ships  were  destroyed.  Is  it  not  therefore  to  stand, 
as  to  its  payments,  on  the  same  ground  with  an  individual 
who  has  insured  a  single  ship  and  paid  for  its  loss? 

Why,  then,  should  there  be  a  discrimination  against  a 
corporation,  or  an  attempt  to  render  it  odious?  In  most 
of  the  States  of  the  Union,  if  not  in  all  of  them,  it  is  re- 
garded as  just  as  much  a  crime  to  rob  a  bank  as  a  hen 
roost,  and  a  conspiracy  to  defraud  an  insurance  company 
is  punished  just  as  a  conspiracy  to  defraud  an  individual. 

But,  again,  a  persistent  effort  is  made  to  divert  so  much 
at  least  of  this  fund  as  was  awarded  to  meet  the  claims 
of  insurance  companies  from  that  purpose,  and  bestow  it 
on  those  who  paid  enhanced  rates  of  insurance,  or  "  ivar 
preiniums,"  as  they  are  frequently  termed.  It  is  an  indis- 
putable fact  that  these  latter  claims  were  presented  at 
Geneva;  that  they  were  earnestly  urged,  and  rejected  by 
the  Tribunal  of  Arbitrators;  and  it  was  expressly  and  in  the 
the  most  unequivocal  language  declared  that  their  claims 
were  wholly  inadmissible,  and  excluded  from  any  allowance 
in  money  that  might  be  awarded.  The  fixct  that  a  suit 
brought  by  an  individual  has  been  rejected  by  a  court  is 
generally  regarded  as  a  sufficient  reason  why  he  should 
not  demand  a  sum  of  money  that  some  othei-  plaintiii"  has 
recovered  at  the  same  term  of  the  court. 

These  war  premium  men,  however,  are  much  eulogized 
for  their  patriotism,  and  it  is  declared  tliat  but  for  them 
the  flag  of  the  United  States  would  not  have  been  kept 
afloat,  and  that  the  money  in  the  hands  of  the  Government 
ought  to  be  bestowed  on  them,  rather  than  given  over  to 
greedy  and  Bouiless  corporations.  IIow  does  the  case  really 
stand  between  the  two  classes  of  claimants? 

A  patriotic  individual  resolves  that  he  will  keep  the  flag 
of  the  United  States  afloat,  and  with  that  view  secures  a 
ship  and  cargo  worth  twenty  thousand  dollars,  and  de- 
termines to  send  them  to  sea;  being,  however,  like  John 
Gilpin's  wife,  possessed  of  a  frugal  mind,  he  detei-niinos 
tliat  lie  will  not  make  all  this  patriotic  outlay  at  his  own 


16 

risk.  lie  thereupon  goes  to  one  of  these  insurance  com- 
panies, and  may  be  supposed  to  address  it  in  a  strain  some- 
thing  after  this  fashion: 

"  Being  a  highly  patriotic  man,  I  am  anxious  that  the 
flag  of  my  country  should  float  on  the  high  seas.  I  have 
therefore  provided  a  ship  and  cargo  worth  twenty  thousand 
dollars,  which  I  propose  to  send  abroad.  But  though 
patriotism  should  be  its  own  reward,  it  ought  not  to  be  ex- 
pected to  give  money  as  well  as  itself  to  the  public.  Hence, 
though  I  intend  to  send  out  this  ship,  I  do  not  propose  to 
do  it  at  my  own  pecuniary  risk.  You  are  a  soulless  cor- 
poration, composed  only  of  men,  women,  and  children, 
without  a  single  spark  of  that  patriotism  that  glows  in  my 
bosom.  Nevertheless  I  know  that  you  comply  with  your 
contracts.  I  understand  that  you  will,  if  paid  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  the  property,  be  responsible 
for  its  value  if  lost  either  by  negligence,  storm,  or  the  pub- 
lic enemy.  I  send  out  twenty  thousand  dollars'  worth,  and 
am  willing  to  give  you  five  hundred  dollars  to  insure  it 
against  all  loss.  It  must,  however,  be  understood  between 
us  that  the  insurance  must  be  large  enough  to  cover  not 
only  the  property,  but  also  the  five  hundred  dollars  I  now 
pay  you,  so  that  in  case  of  loss  of  the  ship  1  am  to  have 
back  my  entire  patriotic  contribution  !  " 

The  agent  of  the  insurance  company  may  be  supposed 
to  reply  in  such  words  as  these:  "It  is  lamentably  true 
that  we  are  only  a  soulless  corporation,  incapable,  therefore, 
of  a  patriotic  emotion,  but  we  greatly  admire  your  patri- 
otism, and  as  you  are  willing  to  risk  five  hundred  dollars, 
we  will  risk  twenty  thousand  dollars !  " 

Some  mouths  possibly  after  this  bargain  has  been  exe- 
cuted, the  insurer  learns  that  his  ship  has  been  lost,  de- 
mands payment,  and  receives  twenty  thousand  five  hundred 
dollars  from  the  soulless  corporation,  and  is  in  addition 
thereto  greatly  applauded  for  his  patriotism. 

The  insurance  company,  through  the  representatives  of 
the  United  States,  presents  its  claim  for  the  value  of  the 
ship  lost  and  paid  for;  the  sum  is  computed  and  allowed  in 


17 

making  up  the  award,  and  actually  paid  over,  and  now  it 
•  is  proposed  to  withhold  the  money  from  the  company,  and 
give  it,  instead,  to  the  ivar  iiremiitm  men  as  a  compensation 
for  their  patriotism. 

It  is  argued,  however,  that  in  those  eases  where  the  ships 
were  not  captured  the  war  premiums  have  not  been  re- 
turned. It  is  well  known,  however,  that  merchants,  in 
estimating  the  cost  of  their  goods,  include  not  only  the 
amount  paid  abroad  for  them,  but  also  the  cost  of  freight, 
insurance,  and  tariff  duties,  and  in  their  sales  add  a  profit 
on  all  these  items.  While  the  insurances  amounted  to  2  or 
3  per  cent.,  the  tarifl*  taxes  were  often  50  or  75  per  cent. 
All  tliese  amounts  have  to  be  repaid  by  the  consumers, 
with  added  profits.  Those  who  paid  1\  per  cent,  addi- 
tional on  account  of  the  war  risk,  probably  made  the  con- 
sumers of  the  country  pay  two  or  three  times  as  much,  just 
as  hotels,  because  currency  is  i&n  or  fifteen  per  cent,  below 
par,  add  100  or  150  per  cent,  to  tlieir  former  prices. 

It  has  been  urged,  however,  that  those  men,  by  paying 
this  additional  per  cent.,  which  did  not,  on  the  average, 
amount  to  1|  per  cent.,  were  placed  at  a  disadvantage  as 
against  foreign  ships.  The  same  thing,  however,  may  be 
said  by  importing  merchants  with  respect  to  the  tariff  du- 
ties. They  are  compelled  to  pay  fitty  or  one  hundred  per 
cent,  on  their  goods  imported,  and  then  compete  with 
home  manufacturers  who  pay  no  duty  at  all.  Mr.  A.  T. 
Stewart  or  11.  B.  Claflin  might,  with  a  vastly  greater  show, 
boast  of  their  patriotism,  and  refer  to  the  large  sums  they 
paid  into  tlie  treasury  to  support  their  country.  They,  as 
well  as  the  war  premium  men,  are  reimbursed  by  the  con- 
sumers of  the  whole  country. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  these  war  premium  claims 
were  rejected  by  the  tribunal  at  Geneva.  Homcthing  oc- 
curred there,  however,  which  shows  most  strikingly  the 
injustice  of  the  attempt  to  exclude  the  insurance  com{)anies, 
on  the  ground  that  they  made  profits  by  reason  of  the  war 
premiums.  After  it  had  been  settled  that  the  capital  of  the 
losses  should  be  paid,  the  fjuestion  arose  whether  the  tri- 
3 


18 

bunal,  in  its  award  of  a  gross  sum,  should  include  interest. 
Sir  Ilouiidell  Talmer,  the  British  counsel,  presented  an 
earnest  argument  against  the  allowance  of  interest,  in 
^\•hich  he  made  this  point: 

"With  respect  to  the  insurance  companies,  it  must  be 
remembered  that,  as  against  the  losses  which  they  paid, 
they  received  the  benefit  of  the  enormus  war  premiums 
which  ruled  at  that  time ;  and  that  these  were  the  risks 
against  which  they  indemnified  themselves  (and  it  cannot 
be  doubted,  so  as  to  make  their  business  profitable  upon 
the  whole)  by  those  extraordinary  premiums.  "Would  it 
be  equitable  now  to  reimburse  them  not  only  the  amount 
of  all  these  losses,  but  interest  thereon,  without  taking  into 
account  any  part  of  the  profits  which  they  so  received?" 
{SuppU.  to  the  London  Gazette  of  October  4,  1872,2?-  4728.) 

How  did  such  a  suggestion  strike  the  minds  of  the  coun- 
sel of  the  United  States?  That  it  embodied  a  degree  of 
assurance  that  was  amusing  from  its  absurdity  is  evident 
from  the  language  used  in  reply: 

"We  may  also  lay  aside  the  suggestions  prejudicial  to 
the  allowance  of  interest  on  the  claims  which,  by  subroga- 
tion or  assignment,  have  been  presented  by  the  insurers^ 
who  have  indemnified  the  original  sufferers.  So  far  as 
Great  Britain  and  this  Tribunal  are  concerned,  who  the 
private  sufl^erers  are,  and  who  represent  them,  and  whether 
they  were  insured  or  not,  and  have  been  paid  for  their  in- 
surance, are  questions  of  no  importance.  But  it  is  worth 
while  to  look  this  argument  in  the  face  for  a  moment. 
Some  of  the  sufferers  by  the  depredations  of  the  Alabama^ 
the  Florida,  and  the  Shenandoah  were  insured  by  American 
underwriters.  These  sufferers  have  collected  their  indem- 
nity from  the  underwriters,  and  have  assigned  to  them 
their  claims.  The  enhanced  premiums  of  insurance  on 
general  American  commerce  have  presumptively  enriched 
the  insurance  companies.  Great  Britain  should  have  the 
benefits  of  these  profits,  and  the  underwriters,  at  least, 
should  lose  the  interest  on  their  claims.  It  is  difficult  to 
say  whether  the  private  or  the  public  considerations  which 


19 

enter  into  tliis  syllogism  are  most  illogical.  Certainly  we 
did  not  expect  that  the  '  enhanced  ■payment  of  insurance^' 
which  Great  Britain  could  not  tolerate,  and  the  Trihnnal 
has  excluded  as  too  indirect,  as  growing  out  of  the  acts  of 
the  cruisers,  to  be  entertained  lohen  presented  by  the  mer- 
chants who  had,  paid  them.,  were  to  be  brought  into  play  by 
Great  Britain  itself  as  direct  enough  in  the  general  busi- 
ness of  underwriting  to  reduce  the  indemnity  on  insured 
losses,  which,  if  uninsured,  they  would  have  been  entitled 
to."     {Sapplt.  to  Lon.  Gaz.,  Oct.  4,  1872,  p.  4737.) 

If,  then,  the  enhanced  premiums  were,  at  the  instance 
of  Great  Britain,  rejected,  and  absolutely  excluded  by  the 
Tribunal,  and  then,  when  afterwards  suggested  b}^  the 
British  counsel  as  a  ground  for  not  paying  interest  merely 
to  insurance  companies,  for  the  reason  that  the}'  had  made 
profits  out  of  these  premiums,  and  the  counsel  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  indignant!}'  rejected  such  a  consideration,  can 
our  Government  now,  on  the  principles  of  common  fair- 
ness, refuse  to  pay  over  to  the  insurance  companies  not 
only  the  interest,  but  tiie  principal  itself?  In  other  words, 
when  the  British  counsel  suggested  that  though  these  in- 
surance companies  ought  to  have  back  their  principal,  yet, 
as  they  had  made  money  out  of  war  premiums,  they  siiould 
not  be  paid  also  interest  thereon,  and  our  Government  re- 
jected the  plea  with  disdain,  can  it  now  refuse  upon  this 
very  ground  to  pay  not  only  the  interest,  but  even  the 
principal  ? 

Among  the  pretexts  assigned  for  not  paying  the  money 
to  those  for  whom  it  was  awarded,  it  has  been  suggested 
that  the  United  States  has  never  paid  off  the  "French 
spoliation  claims"  arising  from  tlio  acts  of  the  French 
cruisers  prior  to  the  year  1800.  But  in  that  case  no 
money  was  jiaid  to  our  Government  by  Franco.  Our  au- 
thorities admitted  tiiat  the  sufferers  on  our  side  ought  to 
be  reimbursed  for  their  losses,  and  promised  when  ai)l('  to 
do  so.  Had  money  then  been  received  it  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  paid  over.  This  is  said  because,  when  in 
1831,  i>y  reason  of  the  treaty  with  France,  negotiated   by 


20 

Win.  C.  Rives,  25,000,000  of  francs  was  obtained  for  spo- 
liations since  the  year  1800,  that  money  was  paid  over  to 
the  individual  suflerers.  If  these  precedents  are  referred 
to,  the  last  one,  which  in  its  features  resembles  the  present 
case,  clearly  ought  to  be  followed.  At  any  rate,  the  first 
one  aftbrds  no  justification  for  a  present  refusal,  l^o  trus- 
tee could  excuse  himself  from  paying  money  received  for 
others  by  alleging  that  on  some  former  occasion  he  de- 
clined to  pay  on  the  ground  that  no  assets  had  in  fact  been 
realized  by  him. 

In  a  case  like  the  present  one  between  individuals,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  insurers  could  recover  in  a  court 
of  justice.  The  United  States  cannot  be  sued  as  an  indivi- 
dual might  be.  Ought  this  immunity  to  be  regarded  as 
a  justification  for  refusal?  Occasionally  an  individual  is 
heard  to  say  that  he  has  so  arranged  his  property  that  he 
does  not  fear  suits  and  judgments  against  him.  Ought 
the  United  States  to  place  itself  in  such  an  attitude? 

What  Great  Britain  might  think  of  such  a  trans  iction  is 
a  secondary  consideration.  If  she  were  an  enemy,  she 
might  well  be  expected  to  point  her  finger  at  us  and  say  to 
the  world,  "  See  what  the  Great  Republic  has  done.  It 
exacted  money  from  us  to  reimburse  such  of  its  citizens  as 
had  paid  for  ships  destroyed  by  reason  of  our  negligence ; 
and  now,  after  getting  the  money  from  ns  for  that  purpose, 
it  refuses  to  pay  them,  and  applies  the  money  to  its  own 
uses!"  What  other  nations  think  of  us  is  undoubtedly  a 
matter  of  consequence  to  us,  but  it  is  vastly  more  import- 
ant for  us  to  do  justice  to  our  own  citizens  and  thus  main- 
tain their  respect  for  the  Government  of  their  country. 

If,  in  addition  to  the  reasons  assigned  for  obtaining  an 
award  for  a  sum  in  gross,  the  agents  of  our  Government  de- 
sired to  veil  their  disappointment  on  account  of  the  rejection 
of  the  claims  of  the  Government,  by  such  a  form  of  award, 
at  least  our  own  citizens  ought  not  to  be  made  to  suffer  for 
this.  As  our  representatives  had  the  benefit  of  such  a 
soothing  balm  to  tiieir  wounded  feelings,  tliey  ought  to  be 


21 

only  the  more  willing  to  do  comiilete  justice  to  those  whose 
claims  enabled  them  to  alleviate  their  own  regrets. 

Five  per  cent,  of  the  sum  recovered,  equal  to  $775,000, 
ha:-^-  already  been  retained  by  the  Government  to  reimburse 
it  for  its  expenses  in  conducting  the  arbitration  and  consti- 
tuting a  board  here  to  pass  on  the  claims.  This  sum  is 
ample  for  the  purpose,  and  in  fact  more  than  sufficient  to 
meet  all  the  expenses  incident  to  the  transaction. 

Upon  an  examination  of  the  entire  case,  it  will  be  seen 
that- 
let.  The  claims  of  the  United  States,  as  a  Government, 
were  rejected,  except  that  there  was  an  allowance  for  two 
or  three  of  its  own  ships  (of  little  value)  destroyed,  that 
came  in  under  the  head  of  direct  losses. 

2d.  That  a  sura  in  gross  was  awarded  to  avoid  the  delay 
and  trouble  of  having  the  individual  cases  re-examined 
before  a  board  of  assessors,  where  each  Government  would 
be  contestants  as  to  every  single  claim.  That  sum  in  gross 
was  made  up  by  estimating  the  amount  of  the  individual 
claims,  with  interest  added  mainly,  and  that  the  excess 
above  this  amount  was  less  than  one  hundred  thousand 
dollars,  which  would  seem,  therefore,  to  be  all  that  the 
Government  could  fairly  claim  as  subject  to  its  disposition 
at  its  own  option. 

3d.  That  in  making  up  the  amount  of  individual  claims, 
those  of  insurance  companies  were  included  just  as  those 
of  individuals;  and  that  the  suggestion  by  the  British 
consul  that,  as  they  had  made  profits  out  of  the  war  pre- 
miums paid  them,  at  least  the  interest  might  bo  withheld 
on  that  ground,  was  indignantly  and  disdainfully  rejected 
by  our  represenaatives. 

4th.  That  the  ample  sum  of  $775,000,  in  gold,  has  been 
retained  to  reimburse  the  Government  for  its  expenses  in 
prosecuting  the  claims  and  distril)Uting  the  anunintH  due  to 
the  several  losers. 

It  would  scorn,  therefore,  that  an  Act  Himilar  to  the 
bill  ofi'cr<'d  1»\'  Senator  ( 'onkliuLC  ou'^iit  to  be  pa^x'd.  mimIit 

425772 


22 

which  the  board  now  in  session  might  consider  the  claims 
of  insurers  as  they  do  those  of  individuals.  Whatever 
sums  might  be  awarded  to  these  various  companies  would 
be  applied  by  them  as  the  laws  of  the  several  States  under 
which  they  have  been  chartered  already  provide. 

It  is  now  evident  that  after  all  the  cases,  both  of  indi- 
vidual losses  and  insurers,  are  allowed,  there  will  be  a  large 
surplus  of  the  fund  remaining.  It,  with  accumulated  in- 
terest, can  be  little,  if  any,  less  than  $20,000,000  in  currency 
value.  It  is  doubtful  if  all  the  claims  estimated  for  at 
Geneva,  as  they  are  likely  to  be  cut  dov*  n  by  the  present 
board,  will  amount  to  more  than  ten  millions.  Certainly 
it  is  apparent  that  the  surplus  will  amount  to  six  or  eight 
millions. 

When  this  has  been  ascertained,  it  will  be  for  our  Gov- 
ernment to  decide  whether  it  will  return  this  excess  to 
Great  Britain,  as  an  individual  does  an  overplus  of  money 
paid  by  mistake,  or  whether  it  will  retain  it  in  the  Treas- 
ury for  the  benefit  of  the  consumers  of  the  country  gen- 
erally who  sustained  losses  by  the  war.  If  it  should  re- 
gard this  last  suggestion  as  inconsistent  with  its  dignity,  it 
might  divide  the  surplus  among  such  enterprises  as  the 
Centennial  celebration,  and  the  Washington  and  Lincoln 
monuments,  or  it  may  even,  if  it  thinks  fit,  bestow  the 
money  upon  such  other  classes  of  its  citizens  as  claim  to 
have  been  especially  injured  during  the  war,  or  at  least  who 
have  shown  the  greatest  anxiety  to  possess  it. 

Note. 

Gentlemen  who  may  not  have  leisure  to  examine  the 
different  volumes  published  will,  besides  other  able  argu- 
ments, find  the  subject  fully  treated  in  the  speeches  of 
Senator  Thurman,  delivered  in  the  Senate  May  11,  1874, 
and  of  the  Hon.  Lyman  Tremain,  in  the  House,  June  9, 
1874.  To  this  last  speech  is  appended  a  statement  em- 
bracing the  numerous  vessels  with  their  cargoes,  their  val- 
ues, and  the  claimants  for  indemnity. 


^^^  IhORJSlA 

AT       . 
LOS  ANGELES 
LIBRARY 


AA    000  518  946    9 


I 


